More reasons to avoid the movie theater

[The_King_of_Soup]

@Equipoise

We saw a movie in London once and had to sit way in the back because someone else bought our tickets and they were reserved. We hated it but being polite, didn’t say anything (and didn’t let our annoyance show).

So, you were reserved too? That is Equipoise.

@Equipoise

We like sitting right near the front, center, 3-4 rows back depending on how close the screen is, though some theaters are front row theaters. Except in a sellout, no one ever sits where we sit normally (…)

I do, but that’s because I’m rapidly going deaf, and I need not only volume but clear direction of sound as well, which means sitting near one set of speakers and concentrating on them. My family hates this, but tolerates it because they like me, or full-screen movies, enough to tolerate it. Also, sometimes they sit far away from me.

@Equipoise

but if the seats were reserved (…) I don’t think I’d like that at all.

Me either. It’s antispontaneous, undemocratic and disgusticulous.

@Equipoise

We have a fantastic home theater system with a 4’x7’ screen and hanging video projector, with a great sound system, yet we still go out to the movies all the time (we’ve seen close to 20 films so far this month in the theater, with more to come in the next few days). We just prefer seeing movies in the theater, and we don’t like to wait for the DVD for movies we want to see.

Well, you go to the movies in London and Ebertville, so the choices are chercer, as Spencer Tracy didn’t say. I have nothing resembling a home theater system, but mostly I watch any movie I think I’ll like at home because that’s the only place background noise won’t destroy my ability to hear the dialogue. Even then I find that DVD recordings often suppress voices in favor of music and sound effects. I’ve regretted the rental of many DVDs and tapes. On the other hand, I’ve been surprised at how little dialogue is really necessary to get through many modern films.

@Equipoise

We do try to go at odd times though, and avoid movies/showtimes that bring out the idiots (…)

That’s good advice, but outside Chicago there are fewer showings at odd times, and these would be less attractive anyhow because of the (absolutely silent during shows, they squeeze a hand if they can’t postpone a trip to the bathroom, bless them) still-young kids.

@Equipoise

…exit sign(s)…

Often are, as you guess, products of municipal fiat.

@Equipoise

…FUCK YOU theaters that have glaring white exit signs shining on the audience, washing out blacks and distracting me from the movie. Even if it’s a city ordinance (I don’t know that it is) does the white bulb really have to be THAT bright? It’s terribly distracting.

You may be a victim not of the city nor of an exit sign but of a bad habit of many theater projectionists (note: the following is based on information given me by my wife, who sold theater equipment and brokered technical assistance for theaters for many years) of cutting the power to the projector bulb (which aren’t even that expensive) in the hopes of extending its life. It doesn’t: it just ruins the film by drowning it in darkness. Roger Ebert complains about this at nauseating length and my wife asserts that it happens everywhere there are theaters. Me, I’m just waiting until they bring back silent movies, or radio theater so I can plug in two earphones and forget the world and be by the world forgot.

Best regards and wishes.

[minor7flat5]

@The King of Soup

You may be a victim not of the city nor of an exit sign but of a bad habit of many theater projectionists . . . of cutting the power to the projector bulb (which aren’t even that expensive) in the hopes of extending its life. It doesn’t: it just ruins the film by drowning it in darkness. Roger Ebert complains about this at nauseating length and my wife asserts that it happens everywhere there are theaters. Me, I’m just waiting until they bring back silent movies, or radio theater so I can plug in two earphones and forget the world and be by the world forgot.

I’m sure that must happen somewhere, but I never heard of it. I worked for one of the big chain theaters, so whenever I needed to change a projector bulb (a very scary process that involves heavy protective gear – they contain high pressure and explode like grenades), I just grabbed a fresh one from the stack in the corner and did the job. In the scheme of things, they aren’t expensive, but if you see the price ($700+) it does give you pause. I could imagine an independent theater owner seeing that price and cutting corners to stretch the life a few hundred hours.

In most cases, projection light quality problems come from either the natural wear on the bulb or improper focussing of the bulb. Here’s a page that shows the bulb in situ. The bulb is about a foot and a half long, and the center part is the size of a small orange. Xenon bulbs blacken over life, and horizontally-mounted bulbs, like the one in the picture, must be rotated occasionally to distribute the blackening. In addition, the bulb must be focused by positioning it carefully in the bowl-shaped reflector you see on that page. Either of these factors can contribute to a poorly-lit film.

@Rashak Mani

But the OP certainly struck me as being anti-social somewhat and I made a honest comment. (I’m not xenophobic thanks) My american friends and family seem to have this great enjoyment of having a nice house and a dog. They always talk about and send fotos of their dogs ! So it kind of made sense that they are disconnected somehow.

This appears to be a common Brazilian stereotype of Americans. You will clearly be able to find Americans that reenforce this image of us, but there are 300 million to choose from, so you will also find many who are completely contrary to what you expect.

When I am in Brazil, virtually every Brazilian I speak with for more than five minutes comments on how I am not “cold” like a typical American. This amuses me since I was raised in a very traditional American fashion. But there is a grain of truth to this stereotype: as is typical of New Jersey, I don’t know my neighbor’s names, and we rarely interact. Even so, you can find American neighborhoods that are every way as close knit and friendly as a neighborhood in the suburbs of Rio.
(BTW: don’t get me wrong here – meu sangue é americano, mas meu coração é brasileiro.)

[Rashak_Mani]

MinorFlat… there is a difference between friendly… and being more social and outgoing. It seems americans are headed the same way europeans are. Very respectful of others to the point of excluding them.

Overall americans… especially those willing to travel abroad are very nice… but they aren’t always “open”. Standoffish or reserved might be a better description.

Why ? I don’t know… maybe its overly competive way of life… ? Still I don’t think my Carioca brethen with their over the top gregariousness and friendliness that is rarely truthful are better. Its a differente style. Brazilians certainly can be two faced… but they will be nice about it.

[EvilHamsterOnCrack]

Just to add to the Israeli reserved seating discussion: I’ve only ever been to movies in Israel in Jerusalem (forget which theater), and those didn’t have assigned seating either.

Now, about high merch prices, in addition to high ticket prices: From what I’ve been told (a friend of mine is manager at a local Regal 24), almost none of the ticket price even goes to the theater. It’s split between the Actors Guild, Directors Guild, This guild, that guild, the MPAA, etc. Most of the money they make is at concessions, and that’s supposed to finance the entire theater complex.

Maybe someone can tell me otherwise, but was that person right?

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@robby

Oh, and BTW, the whole film was just slightly out of focus. :rolleyes:

@Alessan

I’ll never understand why American movie theaters don’t have reserved seats.

@mks57

Usher? What’s an usher?

It’s been years since I’ve seen an usher in a movie theater. Once you get past the concessions stand, it’s an employee-free zone.

I thank whatever deity, be it an unshaven boomingly voiced old man or a flying pasta monster, for Arclight Hollywood (which, amazingly enough, is run by the otherwise excreable Pacific Cinemas). They check focus and sound quality (and warn you if they’re off–at the showing of Serenity I went to they offered refunds or a different showing for a sound problem so slight most theater managers would have rolled their eyes at the complaint), they have big reserved seats with arm rests large enough for two arms, and they have ushers that will seat you…and prevent people from entering the theater once the actual film starts. They even introduce the film and ask patrons to turn off cell phones and pagers and to refrain from talking. They also host some great film festivals and revival showings. I saw Lawrence of Arabia there on their 70mm screen…a truely awesome experience, as was seeing films in their Cinerama Dome. If you’re ever in LA, you should take in a film here. On preview, I see that iamthewalrus(:3= posts the same link.

@EvilHamsterOnCrack

Now, about high merch prices, in addition to high ticket prices: From what I’ve been told (a friend of mine is manager at a local Regal 24), almost none of the ticket price even goes to the theater. It’s split between the Actors Guild, Directors Guild, This guild, that guild, the MPAA, etc. Most of the money they make is at concessions, and that’s supposed to finance the entire theater complex.

Maybe someone can tell me otherwise, but was that person right?

Er, no, at least not regarding the distribution of funds. The various Guilds make their money from fees charged to their members (and those fees can be large). None of them get a dime directly from cinema chains. The studios partially fund and support the MPAA as an alternative to government regulation, but again cinema chains have nothing to do with that. You can think of the chains as being grocery markets; they get the end product and decide which and how much they want to show, but essentially have no control over how films are made, budgeted, produced, or promoted. And like grocery stores, they see the smallest part of the profits while bearing the brunt of public opinion and backlash. Running theater chains has been a losing proposition of late (several chains are on or near bankruptcy on a semi-permenant basis) and after distribution and show fees the money they make on tickets is marginal, so it’s true that their main source of revenue is concessions, but the only film people they pay out to is the studio distributor, not the guilds, the performers, or the MPAA.

This is something of a hijack, but recently serveral studios have been chomping at the bit to release DVDs sooner after theatrical release. Traditionally there’s been a minimum of a sixth month lag, but some producers and directors (like Steven Soderbergh) have been agitating for concurrent release on both screens and DVD. This may well devistate mainstream theater chains, of course, which rely on big opening numbers to make their profits, but would be a boon for many consumers who can’t afford, don’t have access, or would just prefer not to, go out to see a film. It would be kind of a shame insofar as many films are definitely best seen on a big screen–even a large HDTV setup isn’t comperable for some movies–but given the state of projection quality and the impertinence of some members of the viewing public it might qualify as a plus, especially if it keeps the cell phone users and the screen talkers at home where they belong.

Stranger

[Odesio]

@Rashak Mani

Naturally not everyone has the same idea of fun… and its your right to slouch in your comfy sofa at home watching DVDs. How often do you call your friends over to watch stuff with you ? If the answer is rarely I guess my comment wasn’t off.

I rarely call my friends over to watch something with me and they rarely call me over to watch something. When we get together we typically play board games or do something that everyone can participate in. Now when I lived in the big city we typically got together every Sunday to watch the Cowboys play but that had a lot more socializing than

Marc

[MsRobyn]

@Stranger On A Train

This is something of a hijack, but recently serveral studios have been chomping at the bit to release DVDs sooner after theatrical release. Traditionally there’s been a minimum of a sixth month lag, but some producers and directors (like Steven Soderbergh) have been agitating for concurrent release on both screens and DVD. This may well devistate mainstream theater chains, of course, which rely on big opening numbers to make their profits, but would be a boon for many consumers who can’t afford, don’t have access, or would just prefer not to, go out to see a film. It would be kind of a shame insofar as many films are definitely best seen on a big screen–even a large HDTV setup isn’t comperable for some movies–but given the state of projection quality and the impertinence of some members of the viewing public it might qualify as a plus, especially if it keeps the cell phone users and the screen talkers at home where they belong.

Stranger

One of the arguments I’ve heard in favor of concurrent release is to eliminate piracy – it’s supposed to knock some of the wind out of the sails of pirates.

Robin

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@MsRobyn

One of the arguments I’ve heard in favor of concurrent release is to eliminate piracy – it’s supposed to knock some of the wind out of the sails of pirates.

Well, that’s the advantage that the studios claim, although the claim that they’re losing all their profits to piracy is a kind of bullshit cover for the fact that they make and release so many unprofitable films. I scarcely see how simultaneous release on DVD is going to prevent piracy; many prominent recent cases have involved work prints or video data taken (stolen) from the production house by an employee, or distributed to critcs and Academy members as pre-release screeners. And with many films, especially family-oriented films or films with a big cult following (like Donnie Darko) they’ll lose money on initial release but the advertising and/or word of mouth virtually guarantees profit on DVD release, which has significantly less distribution costs than cinematic release anyway. With many films now, the cinematic run can be just chalked up as a marketing expense for the DVD campaign.

But, for cinephiles, there’s something special about seeing a great film on a big screen. I’ve got Master and Commander on DVD with all the extras, but it just doesn’t compare to the 10:30p screening (I had the theater completely to myself) with the ships crashing throught the POV and into each other, or Lawrence riding out of a monotonous, sun-drenched desert, starting from an invisibly small dark point to a huge, looming camel carrying two riders.

Provided, of course, that some asshat isn’t on the phone talking to his “dawg” about what a boring movie this is.

Stranger

[Patty_O_Furniture]

…recently serveral studios have been chomping at the bit to release DVDs sooner after theatrical release. Traditionally there’s been a minimum of a sixth month lag, but some producers and directors (like Steven Soderbergh) have been agitating for concurrent release on both screens and DVD.

That will be great if it ever happens. My 55" Sony Grand Wega has all but eliminated whatever was left of my desire to go get my feet sticky at the local tunnel-plex. Given that we’re sitting about six feet away from the screen, I am fully satisfied that I am having the “big screen” experience. Many of my friends agree, so we have movie nights from time to time and I am developing quite a large library of cinema on dvd.

And the drinks, popcorn & pizza are dirt cheap at my place.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Patty O'Furniture

That will be great if it ever happens. My 55" Sony Grand Wega has all but eliminated whatever was left of my desire to go get my feet sticky at the local tunnel-plex. Given that we’re sitting about six feet away from the screen, I am fully satisfied that I am having the “big screen” experience. Many of my friends agree, so we have movie nights from time to time and I am developing quite a large library of cinema on dvd.

I give it another 18 months, tops, before major studios start doing near simultaneous cinematic and DVD releases; this could actually work to the advantage of cinemas, insofar as they could offer the DVDs for sale of the film people just watched–a major impulse buy opportunity (if they film was any good).

That assumes, of course, that theaters have something to offer that home viewing doesn’t. But consider this; parents with small children, the crowd-adverse, those far away from a cinema, and the like who can’t afford or don’t have ready access to a night at the movies don’t make up a significant revenue stream for cinemas anyway. If theater chains stop doing what they’re doing now–trying to squeeze every last bit of profit out of customers by spending as little as possible on amenities and unskilled labor–and turn to the model of making the viewing of a film a full night out, they can justify higher margins even with reduced ticket sales.

Or maybe I’m just dreaming. But I’d love to see a few Brewvies, a Rosebud Cinema Drafthouse, and an Arclight Cinemas in every city.

Stranger

[SmartAleq]

For those disenchanted with the average American moviegoing experience, may I present Cinetopia ? I haven’t been there yet, but I bet King Kong would be stellar in an environment like this. I wonder what wine goes well with giant gorilla?

[Rashak_Mani]

Lets try and understand better the problem.

What kind of people are crowding US cinemas ? Teens ? Poor people ? Slobbery couples ? Whose spoiling the experience ?

As for the major studios… if they worried more about good storytelling and quality scripts… they wouldn’t have to worry about piracy. Silly people.

[Skywatcher]

@Stranger On A Train

Or maybe I’m just dreaming. But I’d love to see a few Brewvies, a Rosebud Cinema Drafthouse, and an Arclight Cinemas in every city.

The DC area has the Arlington Cinema & Drafthouse.

Along the same lines, at least one New Orleans-area theater tried replacing their candy counter with a daquiri bar. Didn’t help them stay in business, though.

[Odesio]

@Rashak Mani

What kind of people are crowding US cinemas ? Teens ? Poor people ? Slobbery couples ? Whose spoiling the experience ?

For the most part I’ve found that most people in the theater aren’t so bad. However I have noticed a lot of people bring their children to see movies that simply aren’t age appropriate for them and sometimes they get frightened or speak out of boredom. I don’t mind hearing kids talk when I see something like The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, or Chicken Little but maybe parents should keep them away from Dawn of the Dead. Yeah, I sat in front of a bunch of kids under the age of 10 when I went to see Dawn of the Dead.

I don’t know how things are in Brazil but movie theaters in the United States are facing some pretty stuff competetion because of the wide availaibility of DVD, stereos, and even larger television screens at home. Think about it, what does a movie theater really have to offer me that I can’t get at home? A larger screen and a better sound system.

In my opinion the negative aspects of going to the theater outweigh the positive. I have to drive to the theater, I have to sit through a lot of advertisements, I may not get the seat I want, if I want a snack I’m going to pay through the nose to get it, and there’s always the possibility of sitting near someone who is annoying.

Marc

[Mama_Tiger]

@Lute Skywatcher

Along the same lines, at least one New Orleans-area theater tried replacing their candy counter with a daquiri bar. Didn’t help them stay in business, though.

Every movie theater I went to when I lived in New Orleans had a daiquiri bar as well as a candy counter. Heck, there was a daiquiri stand in the local shopping mall food court. They’re totally ubiquitous there. I never heard of one replacing the candy counter with a daiquiri bar, but I’d be surprised since as far as I could tell they all had the daiquiri bar anyway.

[Cat_Whisperer]

Our movie-going experiences are usually pretty good here - certainly not bad enough to be the deciding vote that we will never go see a movie again. I see the future of movie theatres as something of a niche market. Jim and I actually have three levels of movies - one, we wait to rent, two, we wait to see at the cheap theatres, and three, we go and see for full price because we’re that keen on it, and we want to experience it with big screen and great sound system.

[gotpasswords]

This region has some of the most demanding movie audiences, and for the most part, the theaters recognize this and don’t screw up too badly on the technical aspects. The image will be bright and sharply focused, and the sound will be generally rather loud, but clear and understandable. No promises that a spring won’t jab you in the butt or that the place will be any cleaner than someone raking up the cups now and then.

They have to be good - Dolby is about five blocks from my office, Lucasfilm is just a couple miles north, and Pixar is right across the bay.

But… that doesn’t stop some theaters from being crummy. On Monday, our schedules finally lined up so we could go see Harry Potter.

Once we bought our ticket, we just walked into the building. Nobody took, tore or even looked at our tickets. The snack bar had six registers, but only two were open. We look at our tickets. Theater 14. Hmmm… Where’s that? Guess it’s down this hall. At the other end. I think my living room is bigger than this theater. The floor is certainly a mess. One foot finds sticky and the other finds slippery.

Apparently this theater does that dim the projector lamp trick as the movie is dark. Something’s misaligned as well. The bottom half of the screen is fairly well, but not perfectly focused. The top corners are less sharp and the top center sports a double image.

Who would you complain to? Save for the three teenagers selling popcorn, there’s no apparent staff in the building. I’m sure they neither care, nor have the ability to do anything. With that double image, it’s not like someome can just tweak the focus anyway. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d intentionally de-focused to make the double image less noxious.

At least the audience was on its best behavior and it was a “bargain matinee” and only cost six bucks per ticket. But overall, it reminds me why it’s been about eight months since I’d seen a movie in a theater. It also reminds me to pick a different theater next time.

[minor7flat5]

@gotpasswords

Apparently this theater does that dim the projector lamp trick as the movie is dark. Something’s misaligned as well. The bottom half of the screen is fairly well, but not perfectly focused. The top corners are less sharp and the top center sports a double image.

Who would you complain to? Save for the three teenagers selling popcorn, there’s no apparent staff in the building. I’m sure they neither care, nor have the ability to do anything. With that double image, it’s not like someome can just tweak the focus anyway. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d intentionally de-focused to make the double image less noxious.

That projectionist should be hung up by his thumbs as an example to others. I bet he scratches films on their second night as well!

The problem you describe is likely the result of general carelessness. An unfocused lamp will result in an image that is not uniformly bright. A film gate that is not adjusted correctly can easily result in cupping the film as it passes in front of the lens, resulting in parts that are in focus, while others are not. Incorrect loop size as well as a too tight gate can both contribute to jerkiness that could very well result in a double image. I wouldn’t be surprised if the setup he had was scratching the film as you watched it.

[gotpasswords]

Eh. What do you want for a suburban googolplex? The film at least wasn’t scratched up - can’t say it wasn’t getting scratched once past the shutter, but this was a film that had been out for five or six weeks, so it had been treated pretty well, all things considered.